Alaska Switches to Aircell for Internet

Row 44 loses one of its two announced customers: Alaska Airlines apparently tired of waiting for Row 44 to raise the capital necessary to start building out its satellite-backed service, and has chosen to use Aircell. This is a blow for Row 44, which Southwest has picked, but for which we still have no details about financing: will Southwest back the installation, or Row 44 raise private capital? What will Southwest charge for service?

Row 44 has only a couple of non-announced airlines to pitch to in the US, and it's likely that airlines that haven't committed aren't planning to until there's more proof that Internet service produces happier customers who pay more for flights--as well as reasonable revenue from the service.

Alaska will put service on 737-800 long-haul planes first, then roll out fleetwide. The press release is fairly frank in stating why the airline switched: "Their reliable, lower-cost equipment can be installed quickly, allowing Alaska Airlines to introduce Gogo service to our customers as soon as possible."

I had written in the past that Alaska's choice of Row 44 made sense because of the large number of over-sea routes the airline flies to Alaska and Mexico. However, Aircell will have service operating in Canada as a partner to a license winner at some point (this year?).

That, combined with pointing some antennas at over the ocean, might allow reasonably continuous coverage between continental US routes and Alaska. Mexico is another story, but Aircell hopes to have the same deal Verizon Airfone had in Mexico and the Caribbean to allow use of the same spectrum for which it has licenses in the US.

Alaska said in the press release, "To ensure the service is available to the airline's namesake state, Aircell will expand its network to provide Gogo Inflight Internet service on flights to, from and between key destinations in the state of Alaska."

Aircell's Gogo Inflight Internet is on over 700 planes at present. I expect it'll hit about 1,500 planes this year, although the pace of installation could speed up if airlines are happy about uptake and revenue.

Southwest Signs with Row 44Paul McCartney looks to save Abbey Road

Woman Calls To Complain about Loss of Stolen Wi-Fi

Jennifer calls Leo Laporte's Tech Guy radio show to complain her "linksys" has disappeared: She starts by explaining that her "linksys" has gone away, and she bought a USB wireless extender, but it still doesn't show up. Leo asks, wait, do you have a wireless router? No, she's been using this other network.

Leo explains to her that she's stealing, and exposes herself to tremendous risk by being on an open network. "When you see an access point named linksys, it's usually because the person who set it up is kind of clueless," he notes.

I like Leo not compromising on the ethics, while offering security advice, and suggesting she get her own connection.

Paul Weller denies Jam reunionTop Password? 123456

AT&T's HSPA 7.2 Isn't Quite What It Seems

AT&T didn't want to let T-Mobile steal the initiative on HSPA 7.2: I missed the 5 January 2010 release from AT&T that explained the firm had updated its mobile broadband network to HSPA 7.2; T-Mobile said last week its entire footprint is now HSPA 7.2 as well.

AT&T said last year that it would roll out the 7.2 update--which offers a raw data rate of 7.2 Mbps including network overhead--to most sites by the end of 2010, and its entire footprint by 2011. In Europe, HSPA 7.2 networks seem to operate in a broad range: users report regular performance from about 1 to 4 Mbps. It's unclear how carriers will provision, throttle, or shape HSPA 7.2 here.

AT&T's announcement coming early made it seem like it might have leapfrogged T-Mobile, given that AT&T has more metro areas covered with 3G, and has already sold a fair amount of HSPA 7.2 enabled gear, such as the iPhone 3GS. But that's not the case.

AT&T wasn't trying to pull a fast one, even though it was marketing this move as an enhancement. In the 5 January press release, the company makes it crystal clear that it's upgraded the software to allow HSPA 7.2 even though it doesn't have the necessary backhaul improvements in place to make the network actually faster.

This is refreshingly frank. The release said that the software update would improve network quality even before backhaul improvements that are slated for this year and next are in place to provide increased capacity. I'm sure AT&T is correct. More efficient use of the local link among capable devices means less wasted air time and less congestion, which allows better packet shaping and prioritization. I'm sure local network links function far better at 7.2 Mbps, even if the backhaul can't support the uplink side.

Six cities have the promised backhaul improvements underway: Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, and Miami. The release says the updates are site by site, which means you could experience different speeds driving around the same city while the upgrades are in process.

T-Mobile, on the other hand, has been building its fresh HSPA network with the notion that backhaul for HPSA+ (21 Mpbs in its version) will be flooding the grid, and thus has the advantage of not having to deal with legacy installations. It has been able to make all its choices about towers with the notion that each base station may need 20 to 100 Mbps of backhaul. (These are guesses; the company hasn't released that information.)

I continue to find it ironic that wireless networks rely so heavily on wires.

T-Mobile Announces HSPA+ USB StickThe Candle Thieves to release debut single

T-Mobile Announces HSPA+ USB Stick

T-Mobile is trying to seize its HSPA+ momentum: The fourth-ranked carrier by subscribers in the US, T-Mobile is trying to establish an advantage through its fast deployment of 7.2 Mbps HSPA followed this year by 21 Mbps HSPA+. But you need the proper hardware to go with that faster network, and today's announcement of the webConnect Rocket USB Laptop Stick (no pricing yet) is signaling more to come.

The modem won't ship until March, and HSPA+ is available only in Philadelphia so far. T-Mobile said it will focus on bringing HSPA+ to the coasts first, and then move inland. In an interview, T-Mobile said it would have the "majority" of its footprint upgraded to HSPA+ in 2010.

The company also stressed its work on backhaul improvements, a bane of the mobile broadband industry. You can have as much bandwidth as you want on the local link between devices and the tower, but then you have to offload that to a core network. Many cell sites had paltry backhaul and it was difficult to bring in more. T-Mobile promised me more details soon, but the company recognizes that you can't advertise a raw rate of 21 Mbps--probably 5 to 7 Mbps to individual users--without having invested on the backside, as AT&T has learned to its high discomfort.

T-Mobile would like bragging rights for having the fastest network, although even with the latest market rollouts, it's still covering just over 200m people in approaching 300 cities. AT&T, by contrast, even with its smaller-than-Verizon 3G footprint has 350 metro areas (not just cities) with 3G service, although AT&T doesn't seem to discuss people passed with service.

I keep pressing T-Mobile on its 5 GB monthly bandwidth limit included with all its 3G plans as it discusses HSPA+ plans. The 5 GB limit was a quiet or explicit limit before 3G networks could routinely deliver over 1 Mbps (back in the EVDO Rev. 0 and GPRS/UMTS days), and now it seems quaint even for EVDO Rev. A and regular HSPA.

Why gives people HSPA+ when, at full speed, they could use up their entire monthly allotment in just over two hours (assuming 5 Mbps average speed)?

So far, T-Mobile just repeats that most of its 3G users consume just a fraction of the 5 GB to which they are entitled each month.

Can Minneapolis Wi-Fi Survive WiMax?Paula Abdul offered a $1 million to appear on ‘Dancing With The Stars’

Electromagnetic Sickness Examined by LA Times

The LA Times has a pair of articles about the health risks associated with electromagnetic fields (EMF): They're rather thoughtful. The longer article starts by trying to claim that there's a "debate" and that experts "disagree," but then proceeds to present the factually accurate view that there are some researchers and outsiders who challenge the increasing preponderance of research that backs up the lack of a link between EMFs and health effects.

I particularly like this researcher and his statement:

In the opinion of Ken Foster, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia who has studied EMFs since the early 1970s, if such fields were any sort of health threat, scientists wouldn't have to sort through the outer limits of statistics to find trouble. "There would be terrible effects all over the place," Foster says. As no obvious catastrophe has shown itself, "I would tend to think there's nothing there."

That's where I keep coming back to Occam's Razor related to EMF exposure. People who claim effects say that there are tens of millions of more people obviously suffering from effects, but the research (described quite well in the second LA Times article) doesn't back this up.

I would argue that electrosensitivity has been well and truly put to bed, and that means that the effects should show up in cancer studies, given the use of cell phones for longer than 10 years by a significant population. That's not showing up in general work, nor in studies like Interphone, which I wrote about a few days ago.

One set of analysis of a segment of the Interphone work showed a possible correlation between use of a cell phone for more than 10 years and, in those people who had certain kinds of brain tumors, the tumor appearing on the same side of the head as those who used a cell phone mostly on that side of the head.

But the researchers in that study noted quite clearly that there's a recollection bias. If you have a tumor next to your right ear, and researchers say 10 years or longer ago did you mostly use a cell phone on your right side, the expectation is that people tend to say they used the damaged side of the head.

I remember the concerns in the early 1990s about ELF/VLF (extremely and very low frequency) EMF produced by CRT-based computer monitors. Studies abounded that showed risks, especially from Sweden, but when you read the studies you found that exposing chicks to radiation at huge multiples of what normal exposure was, or that retrospective studies asked people detailed questions to correlate usage at old video display terminals (VDTs) and miscarriage, without eliminating other risk factors. The research was basically garbage, no link was ever found, and there were no bulges in epidemiology related to CRT use. It was forgotten.

I expect in time the same thing will happen here. With no smoking guns for cancers, no long-term health effects found, and electrosensitivity isolated again and again from the presence or absence of EMF, in 10 years we won't be talking about this at all.

GQ on Dangers of EMFPaul Weller denies Jam reunion

New SIM Card Turns Regular Phones into Wi-Fi Hotspots

The SIMFi takes a little bit of effort to wrap one's head around: This offering from Sagem Orga and Telefonica, announced at the Barcenola Mobile World Congress this week, puts a Wi-Fi radio into a standard SIM (Subscriber Identity Module), which is used in all GSM devices to authenticate to the network and associate billing information. This allows a 3G feature phone without Wi-Fi built in to become a hotspot, sharing mobile broadband with netbooks, smartphones, and other devices. It's fiendishly ingenious, as it obviates putting a 3G modem into multiple devices while offering "tethering" without a cable.

Palm Lets Plus Models Play Hotspot

Can Minneapolis Wi-Fi Survive WiMax?

Minnesota Public Radio looks at what WiMax may do to the country's only successful for-fee city-wide Wi-Fi network: Brandt Williams examined whether Clearwire's WiMax service entering the Twin Cities could spell disaster for US Internet, which covers about 95 percent of Minneapolis with Wi-Fi service.

US Internet charges about $20/mo for a rate of 1 to 6 Mbps downstream, while Clear offers service for the home for $25/mo for 1 Mbps downstream up to $45/mo for 3 to 6 Mbps downstream (bursts over 10 Mbps) for unlimited use. Mobile plans are $35/mo for 2 GB of use or $45/mo (first six months at $30/mo) for unlimited use. Combined home and mobile plans are avaialble, too, at $50/mo for the fastest home and mobile service.

There's still room a value consumer in this space. I would suspect one of the typical 16,000 US Internet subscribers has considered and rejected $40 to $60 per month for bundled and unbundled cable modem service, even though that would be far faster and is generally available in the city. The same subscribers might have a laptop or iPod touch that they use for access with the same account while out and about.

Because $20/mo used to be the baseline for dial-up service, that number still has some resonance in predicting whether people will jump up to the next level. You can listen to the story right here:

White Stripes at war with US Air ForceHands-On with Gogo